Cool the rhetoric; don't copy the attack dogs

[9soladeogloria]

Mr. Peroutka - while our family voted for you in the last election and we have been supporters of the Constitution Party for many years, we find the tone of your comments lately to be lacking in the dignity we have come to expect from men like Howard Phillips and others who have led this party in the past.

Your constant parody, ridicule, and denouncing of President Bush and the Republicans & Democrats does not, in our humble opinion, place you on a pedestal above them, but rather could in some people's eyes put you on a par with them and their "attack dog" politics. In Romans 13, Paul speaks of not only being subject to governing authorities, but of giving honor to whom honor is due. I am no fan of George Bush or his minions in the Republican Party, but I think we can oppose his policies without resorting to ridicule and mockery. Pray for the man, rebuke him if necessary, but don't resort to the tactics of the political hacks of our day! You demean our cause and open up the Constitution Party to undue criticism. People who deny the truth, especially regarding the intent of our Constitution, will find plenty of ammo to shoot at us without us handing it to them.

I am not afraid of speaking the truth, but I think it could be done with love, not vitriol, if we expect the people of the United States to heed us and come to our side. Thanks for listening.

Yours in Christ,
Paul Sauvé

[Michael A. Peroutka]

Dear 9soladeogloria:

You ended your message to me by saying "thanks for listening". Let me begin by saying thanks for writing. Your message is well received and greatly appreciated.

I feel it is probably safe to assume that if some of my writing or speaking has given you a perjorative impression, there are others who feel likewise but have not taken the time and effort and care that you have in communicating it to me. So, I am grateful and willing to accept rebuke and make correction.

As I write this, the hour is late and our days here are pretty full of activity in trying to urge our State legislature to take action to defend the God-ordained institution of marriage in Maryland. This will probably consume much of our time in the next few days. However, I promise to return to this issue and give it appropriate consideration.

Perhaps you can help get me started by suggesting two or three examples of what you consider to be "parody" or "ridicule".

Also, you say that this is "constant". Do you really mean that? "Constant" would seem to imply that there is no other type of commentary or communication BUT this "parody, ridicule or denouncing". Is this what you mean?

Thanks again for your caring message and thanks for helping to restore the Republic. (And thanks for your vote.)

Blessings,

Michael

[Joe_Liberty]

I disagree with Paul. I would hate to see AV become another mealy-mouthed pseudo-Christian site that applauds everything Bush does - and/or ignores his unGodly, unconstitutional transgressions. Keep doing exactly what you are doing.

[Michael A. Peroutka]

Dear Joe:

Thank you for your words of support. I appreciate it.

Since we can never really see ourselves as we are perceived by others, I do want to be open to constructive criticism and I have the feeling that this letter was meant honestly and Paul's view should be given proper deference.

For my part I encourage you to keep up your postings as well. Your pieces are well conceived and presented.

Peace,

Michael

[Pilgrim]

Dear 9soladeogloria:

Perhaps you can help get me started by suggesting two or three examples of what you consider to be "parody" or "ridicule".
Michael


I have no intention of speaking for 9soladeogloria, but the following, from the first half of Radio Program 42, might be considered by some to be parody or ridicule.

Amazing, absolutely amazing, that George Bush is considered by many people to be pro-life…. It’s incredible he can get away with doing and not doing the things that he does and maintain this image that he’s in favor of life, that he’s pro-life… he gets away with this rhetoric which is contra to his actions...


It’s entirely possible that President Bush sincerely believes he is pro-life. That he believes it on a personal level, but not to the extent that it requires him to act. While he considers himself to be pro-life, his beliefs do not require him to issue an executive order, chastise the Supreme Court, or propose legislation.

Many, perhaps even most, “pro-life” individuals appear to share that same view. The view that one need only believe in their heart that abortion is wrong to be pro-life. That an individual’s belief and proclamation that he or she is pro-life fully demonstrates that they are pro-life. Believing they are pro-life is all that is required to be pro-life. Action is not required to be pro-life. Just believing it in one's heart.

That seems to square well with the common belief and teaching among many Christians that salvation is conditioned on belief only. The idea that actions have no bearing on salvation, but one’s faith/belief alone ensures salvation, and proclaiming that belief is a demonstration that they have been saved. Coming from that background, with that view, it would seem to logically follow that one’s “position” on abortion could be demonstrated in the same way.

[Joe_Liberty]

Pilgrim,

I don't think the example you have chosen is a very good one. I would not consider that remotely parody or ridicule.

You may be right that most people share the view that one need only believe in their heart that abortion is wrong to be pro-life, but I certainly hope you are wrong. If someone sincerely says they are pro-life, and they perform an abortion or get an abortion, should we judge them by their words or by their actions?

I don't see your faith vs. works explanation as being relevant. We believe that the civil ruler is to be a servant of God, deriving his authority from God and duty-bound to govern according to the expressed will of God. What President Bush's failure to do so means for his eternal destiny is between him and God, but what action I take in the voting booth based on his failure is between me and God, and I chose not to vote for a candidate who failed in that duty - whatever the reasons for his failure.

[Pilgrim]

If someone sincerely says they are pro-life, and they perform an abortion or get an abortion, should we judge them by their words or by their actions?

You seem to be implying that they should be judged by their actions. We need to carefully consider what consistency demands if we take that approach. The President claims to be pro-life. There is no evidence that he has performed any abortions. One could even argue that he discourages rather than encourages people to have abortions. Therefore, consistent application of a simple judge-by-actions approach would mean he is pro-life.

It seems to come down to how one defines “pro-life”. How does one determine the actions that define the pro-life individual, or prove that an individual isn’t pro-life?

[Joe_Liberty]

You didn't answer my question.

You implied that someone should be judged on whether or not they are pro-life on their words rather than their actions.

My question to you is: If someone says they are pro-life, but they performed an abortion or had an abortion, would you describe that person as pro-abort or pro-life?

If you agree with me that such an individual is pro-abort, regardless of how they describe themselves or what they say they believe, then you agree with me that actions are more important than words.

If we agree that actions are more important than words, then President Bush's failure to use the power he has to end all "legal" abortion means that he is pro-abort, regardless of any words to the contrary.

[Pilgrim]

You didn't answer my question.
I think I did. It appears to me you didn’t understand my answer or I didn’t answer in a way you wanted.
You implied that someone should be judged on whether or not they are pro-life on their words rather than their actions..
I don’t think I did. I suggested that many people appear to judge others chiefly by their words when it concerns abortion and salvation.
My question to you is: If someone says they are pro-life, but they performed an abortion or had an abortion, would you describe that person as pro-abort or pro-life?
My short answer: I would describe them as pro-abort. But as I attempted to demonstrate in the example in my previous post, consistent application of that reasoning can be used to describe the President as pro-life.
If you agree with me that such an individual is pro-abort, regardless of how they describe themselves or what they say they believe, then you agree with me that actions are more important than words.
I believe actions are just as important as words. But I’m suggesting many don’t believe that actions are just as important as words when it comes to certain issues such as abortion and salvation.
If we agree that actions are more important than words, then President Bush's failure to use the power he has to end all "legal" abortion means that he is pro-abort, regardless of any words to the contrary.
Here you are being specific as to what actions are required of a “true” pro-life President. However, the President and many other Christians who consider themselves pro-life don’t appear to believe that the action you suggest is required of a pro-life president.

Let’s consider some other actions. Would it be correct to describe a person who claims to be pro-life as pro-abortion if he/she:
Doesn’t regularly protest in front of an abortion clinic,
Doesn’t periodically encourage their congressmen and senators protect the life of the unborn,
Doesn’t actively support or send donations to pro-life causes,
Does donate money to charities such as the United Way that have ties to Planned Parenthood?
Which of the above actions would make someone who claims to be pro-life, pro-abortion? Any one of the above? Some combination of the above? All of the above (collectively)?

[Joe_Liberty]

So, If I understand what you are saying, you agree with us that President Bush is pro-abort, but you are concerned that other people will consider our saying so, to be parody and ridicule, because they believe that President Bush is sincerely pro-life based on his words, regardless of his actions?

I can agree that there are some people who feel that way. I see AV as performing a valuable service by trying to convince such people that they are wrong.

We are agreed that someone who claims to be pro-life, but has an abortion or performs an abortion is pro-abort. Similarly, someone who claims to be pro-life and has the power to end "legal" abortion, but declines to do so, is pro-abort.

Here are my answers to your questions which don't seem to me to be all that complicated:

Doesn’t regularly protest in front of an abortion clinic, (pro-abort)
Doesn’t periodically encourage their congressmen and senators protect the life of the unborn, (pro-abort)
Doesn’t actively support or send donations to pro-life causes, (pro-abort)
Does donate money to charities such as the United Way that have ties to Planned Parenthood? (pro-abort)

I believe that each of us are blessed with different gifts and placed in different positions. Some may have greater material resources to contribute than others, while some have more time. Some people may be effective speakers or writers, while others can be more effective counseling pregnant women. I submit that anyone who claims to be pro-life, but does absolutely nothing to end the abortion holocaust in America, is pro-abort. It seems to me that the President of the United States is the only person in America, who can not only influence this issue, but could immediately save the lives of thousands of unborn, if only he were willing to use the legitimate power that he has. One of the actions that all American citizens can take to end abortions is to vote for candidates who will do so.

[Pilgrim]

So, If I understand what you are saying, you agree with us that President Bush is pro-abort, but you are concerned that other people will consider our saying so, to be parody and ridicule, because they believe that President Bush is sincerely pro-life based on his words, regardless of his actions?
Basically yes, except that some individuals appear to view at least some of his actions as pro-life.
I see AV as performing a valuable service by trying to convince such people that they are wrong.
I wholeheartedly agree.
We are agreed that someone who claims to be pro-life, but has an abortion or performs an abortion is pro-abort. Similarly, someone who claims to be pro-life and has the power to end "legal" abortion, but declines to do so, is pro-abort.
The second necessarily follows the first only when the actions you have specified are a shared standard. People who don’t share your standard of pro-abortion actions won’t come to the same conclusion.
Here are my answers to your questions which don't seem to me to be all that complicated:

Doesn’t regularly protest in front of an abortion clinic, (pro-abort)
Doesn’t periodically encourage their congressmen and senators protect the life of the unborn, (pro-abort)
Doesn’t actively support or send donations to pro-life causes, (pro-abort)
Does donate money to charities such as the United Way that have ties to Planned Parenthood? (pro-abort).
Based on your answers, I need to be labeled pro-abortion. Though I believe abortion is a sin of murder, and will readily teach and tell people so, I’m still pro-abortion because I am guilty of the first three on the list above.
I submit that anyone who claims to be pro-life, but does absolutely nothing to end the abortion holocaust in America, is pro-abort.
Wait, maybe I’m not pro-abortion. I haven’t done “absolutely nothing to end the abortion holocaust in America”.
One of the actions that all American citizens can take to end abortions is to vote for candidates who will do so.
Been there. Done that. More than once. Does that make me pro-life after all? This seems very confusing for such a simple subject.;)

[Joe_Liberty]

So, if you voted for Michael Peroutka over President Bush and you agree that AV is performing a valuable service, I don't understand what your beef is.
You complain that the fist half of radio show 42 might be considered parody or ridicule. By that standard, any discussion of political differences would have to be considered out of bounds.

Yes, those who disagree with us are going to be offended by what we do. But that is just another way of saying that those who disagree with us don't agree with us - circular reasoning.

[Pilgrim]

So, if you voted for Michael Peroutka over President Bush and you agree that AV is performing a valuable service, I don't understand what your beef is.
My “beef”, if you wish to call it that, is with the notion that a person should be considered pro-abortion unless they take whatever actions you or someone else deems appropriate and necessary. The President claims to be pro-life. He isn’t doing anywhere near what we think he should with regard to abortion. Though I find his lack of action very disappointing and frustrating, I can’t agree that he is best described as pro-abortion.
You complain that the fist half of radio show 42 might be considered parody or ridicule. By that standard, any discussion of political differences would have to be considered out of bounds.
As I stated before, I believe the President really considers himself to be pro-life. Mr Peroutka implied that he is actually a pro-abortion president hiding behind a carefully crafted pro-life image. I think many people believe that implication goes too far.
Yes, those who disagree with us are going to be offended by what we do.
If you offend, there is less opportunity for education. Better to disagree without offending, and keep the door open. In the vast majority of instances, Mr. Peroutka does that very well.

[Joe_Liberty]

Of course I call someone pro-abortion if they fail to take actions that I think necessary. I certainly am not going to describe someone as pro-life when they aren't. One reason I didn't vote for President Bush is because he is anti-life. (http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=109)

If it were my show I wouldn't have a clue what I could do to please you. The lines you highlighted for condemnation have to be about the most moderate, temperate, and innocuous statements I have ever heard coming from either political talk radio or a minister of God. However, it's not my show. Maybe Michael understands and agrees with you and will accomodate your wishes. We'll see.

[Pilgrim]

Of course I call someone pro-abortion if they fail to take actions that I think necessary. I certainly am not going to describe someone as pro-life when they aren't. One reason I didn't vote for President Bush is because he is anti-life. (http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=109)How can one know, apart from God’s word, what specific actions are necessary or required? I may agree that the President hasn’t taken the actions that he should to take, perhaps even actions that God demands based on his position. There seems little doubt that he is a lukewarm Christian, but I’m not ready to call him anti-life or pro-abortion.


If it were my show I wouldn't have a clue what I could do to please you. The lines you highlighted for condemnation have to be about the most moderate, temperate, and innocuous statements I have ever heard coming from either political talk radio or a minister of God. However, it's not my show. Maybe Michael understands and agrees with you and will accomodate your wishes. We'll see.Where did I say I wasn’t pleased with the show? I was simply pointing out an example of, and defending a view which, some might consider ridicule on the part of Mr. Peruotka. Perhaps the example I chose is too minor to warrant so much discussion.

Though I have great respect for him, I’m not overly concerned with what Mr. Peruotka’s response might be regarding this issue. I’m concerned with what God thinks about my thoughts, actions, and speech. Hopefully I’ve done no disservice to anyone with the discussion.

[Joe_Liberty]

I think you have done a disservice to Michael Peroutka. He has described President Bush anti-life and you seem to be implying that in doing so he is being disobedient to God. If you are not concerned about Michael's response and you don't hope to modify the tenor of the program, I am not sure of the purpose of your original post.

[Pilgrim]

I guess I need to straighten up or stop posting.

[Michael A. Peroutka]

"Who are you going to believe? ...me or your own eyes?
-- Marx (Groucho)


Dear Folks:

I have read with interest this thread and contributed some to it myself.

This thread began as a rebuke to me for my tone in the radio program and perhaps also included some rebuke of my article about the State of the Union Speech. My thought was to ask for specifics so that I could either defend myself, explain, or admit my error and correct it.

I think that there has now been a fair opportunity for author of the original post and for anyone else to make specific any comments or series of comments that they thought to be ridiculing, or parody, etc.

I think it is fair at this point to say that no ridicule or parody has been exposed. At least I haven't been able to detect anything of substance here.

My opinion, for what its worth, is that some people see "ridicule" because they still hold out hope that George Bush is pro life or pro America. That is, some people are still hoping that their eyes are deceiving them. They cling to the illusion that the emperor really has clothes on!!! When someone like me makes the case that he is naked, it is an affront to thier illusion. It is upsetting. I understand this well since I used to believe he was fully clothed, as well.

That is why I asked for debate on this issue and why I'm still open to it. So far, however, I think it's fair to say that the case for ridicule has not been made.

By the way, even supposing that such a case is made, we could still have a discussion as to whether ridicule, given all the circumstances, might NOT be innappropriate.

Thanks to all,

Michael